Monday, December 21, 2020
The Defend Commerce Secrets and techniques Act (“DTSA”), enacted in 2016, created a federal proper of motion for misappropriation of commerce secrets and techniques. The Ninth Circuit lately addressed for the primary time whether or not a DTSA declare could also be introduced towards misconduct predating the enactment of the DTSA. The Ninth Circuit held that it might, as long as the misappropriation continued till after the enactment of the DTSA. See Attia v. Google LLC, — F.3d —, 2020 WL 7380256 (ninth Cir. 2020).
In Attia, plaintiff Eli Attia developed a brand new structure know-how known as Engineered Structure (“EA”). In July 2010, Google approached Attia about partnering to create a program to implement EA. Attia disclosed his alleged EA commerce secrets and techniques with the understanding that Google would compensate him if this system was profitable. In 2011, Google allegedly filed patent purposes primarily based on the EA commerce secrets and techniques. After the patents printed in 2012, Google allegedly excluded Attia from the mission and used Attia’s EA know-how to create a brand new enterprise, Flux Manufacturing facility. Attia filed swimsuit asserting, amongst different claims, a declare pursuant to the DTSA. The district court docket dismissed Attia’s DTSA declare partly as a result of the truth that the alleged misuse occurred years earlier than the DTSA was enacted. Attia appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed that side of the district court docket’s resolution.
The Ninth Circuit thought of, as a problem of first impression, whether or not the DTSA gives for a “continued use” principle of legal responsibility. The Ninth Circuit famous that the Uniform Commerce Secrets and techniques Act, which many states have adopted, expressly states that “[w]ith respect to a unbroken misappropriation that started previous to the efficient date” of the laws, it “doesn’t apply to the persevering with misappropriation that happens” after the regulation is handed. The DTSA, in distinction, contained no such “anti-continued use provision.” The Ninth Circuit deemed this omission deliberate and important: “That it didn’t embody such a provision within the DTSA evinces congressional intent for the statute to use additionally to post-enactment misappropriation that started previous to enactment.” In consequence, the Ninth Circuit held that the misappropriation of a commerce secret previous to the enactment of the DTSA doesn’t preclude a declare arising from post-enactment misappropriation or continued use of the identical commerce secret.
Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.Nationwide Legislation Assessment, Quantity X, Quantity 356